Author Topic: Forensics  (Read 8881 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2017, 01:45:54 PM »
Yes, it is interesting---Joanna's car has never been mentioned anywhere, as far as I can see. Greg had taken it to Sheffield, so perhaps they did not think it needed to be examined, but it is strange that we have never even seen a photograph of it.

I believe the third car the police examined was that of Peter Stanley, another neighbour.

why would they need to examine Peter Stanleys car ??? he wasn't a suspect!

If they examined Peter Stanleys car early on, whats to say that they didn't have access to Dr Vincent Tabak's car before his arrest, at which point any DNA material could have been transferred..


Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Forensics
« Reply #16 on: April 01, 2017, 02:27:23 PM »
why would they need to examine Peter Stanleys car ??? he wasn't a suspect!

If they examined Peter Stanleys car early on, whats to say that they didn't have access to Dr Vincent Tabak's car before his arrest, at which point any DNA material could have been transferred..

I remember reading that Peter Stanley drove his own car to the police station, at the same time as they took CJ's cars away. Whether they inspected it, I don't remember!

Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2017, 03:28:46 PM »
I remember reading that Peter Stanley drove his own car to the police station, at the same time as they took CJ's cars away. Whether they inspected it, I don't remember!
I don't remember reading this, but it is fully consistent with the carnival atmosphere that seems to have prevailed in Canynge Road at this time - perhaps because so many officers, neighbours, students and dog-walkers had been drinking more than usual. One side of me cannot take seriously the impression that Peter Stanley would have been a suspect, since Greg Reardon wasn't a suspect, yet the irreproachible, unpractical Chris Jefferies was suspected for a period of about 3 months. If I took Operation Braid seriously - which I frankly confess that I don't - then I would have included these and many other persons whose names we know on the suspect list, ranking them geographically and socially in order of probability. I concede that the police had an obligation to fly some kites so as to deceive the perpetrator(s), but in this case they seem to have been holding a veritable kite party night after night. Nevertheless, I do think these is an argument to be made that the removal of the front door and all these cars was staged specifically to flush Vincent Tabak out and precipitate the telephone call from Holland. This may even have been the true reason for the seemingly dim-witted arrest of Christopher Jefferies.

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Forensics
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2017, 03:41:14 PM »
Trying to find you a link---the one I tried didn't work, but there is a Daily Telegraph report if you look up "Peter Stanley, Canynge Road, Car!!

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Forensics
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2017, 03:48:23 PM »
www.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-examining-third-car-12799


This one seems to work!

I don't think Peter Stanley was ever a suspect.

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2017, 04:09:04 PM »
www.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-examining-third-car-12799


This one seems to work!

I don't think Peter Stanley was ever a suspect.



If they searched that car, what about his Jeep????

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2017, 06:40:14 PM »
There is not a lot know about exactly how the forensics where carried out in this case...

Longwood Lane.. where we have Andrew Mott with his Broom Handle trying to stop Joanna Yeates body from thawing..

A lane where a body apparently lay undiscovered for 8 days, which many local people have said they can't see possible..

When I look at the photographs that are available for Longwood Lane and the Police carrying out their searches I suddenly started to question it..

We have Photographs that I have attached, showing police officer searching... searching for what??  I'd of expected them to have plastic gloves on, but they haven't.. they are handling Forensic paper bags with bare hands..(3rd Picture) they have broom handles and rakes, but no one with them to photograph where possibly the evidence they recover has been recovered from??

I would have imagined that they would have used markers or flags to indicate where the evidence or any materials they come across lay, so someone whom is suited up can handle this important evidence..

What it reminds me of is when you have a team of searches looking for a missing person and not a team of Forensic scientists/ specialists collecting important evidence from in and around the second scene of crime..

The other really noticable thing is the LACK of SNOW......

What are they looking for???? or is it for the media????

I found a post where Mark Williams-Thomas makes comments with regards the collecting of Forensic Material:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370480#msg370480

So I will ask again, what were they looking for with all the rakes and broom handles?? Because they apparently didn't pick up all of the possible Forensic material at the second scene of crime...

The video is very interesting if short....

How many groups of Police men and woman went wandering off with broom handles????? They must have been looking for something!!!!

It also shows just how narrow the verge is!!!


Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2017, 09:27:55 PM »
www.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-examining-third-car-12799

This one seems to work!

I don't think Peter Stanley was ever a suspect.
I stand corrected. Well done mrswah. I didn't even know that Peter Stanley had a 1995 burgundy BMW 5 Series in addition to his Jeep. Presumably the BMW had secret compartments in which the police imagined someone might have concealed and transported a body while its owner was out Jeeping, and thereby incriminated his neighbour.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 08:12:39 PM by John »

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2017, 10:33:08 AM »
Another thing of Interest is anything that relates to Joanna Yeates phone..

We do not know what type of phone she owned, it amazes me that the battery still worked on the Sunday evening after it hadn't had a recharge since the Friday morning..

This is from the opening speech from the defence:..
Quote
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend

What were the exact time of these phone calls and texts... which male friends did she phone???

And most importantly when she says she is "At Home On My Tod".... What time is that reply??????

Because it would give a more accurate timeline for her being at her own address... NOT the guessing everyone has been doing!!!





Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2017, 10:08:21 AM »
I don't know the chain of command and how an Investigation is processed...

But as always something bothers me...

How are LGC Forensics collecting anything from Joanna Yeates body as it lies in situ???

You would have thought they would have waited.. There is something fundamentally wrong with this situation, I keep going over and over what was said at trial and in earlier and later interviews...

I cannot see why and how they would collect such material before Dr Delaney got to the scene!!!

Isn't it for the pathologist to see the body before ANYONE touches it???? Is that how the chain of command works??

I'm serious... something is slightly off, like a lot of this investigation I'm no expert but the jigsaw doesn't quite fit correctly, and I'm still looking for the piece...

Her body is taken from the scene at 4:45pm if I remember correctly and Dr Delaney doesn't get to see her till 6:00pm at the mortuary..

So is that normal for LGC Forensics to start taking samples from a FROZEN body????

Or (IMO) is that why Andrew Mott said that he had to stop a body from thawing, so it was even possible for anyone to take a sample...

Wouldn't the evidence be compromised in some way if:

(A): Many people where around her body

(B): she wasn't covered with a forensic tent

Someone explain the chain of command when it comes to forensically examining a body... I always believed nothing could be done until the PATHOLOGIST had seen it!!!!

I'm sure I remember one of them saying they removed her clothing.. if that was the case, how did they remove clothing from a frozen body that would have been frozen in the foetal position?????

Again Questions but NO Answers!!!!

EDIT...............

How did they take the DNA sample from the back of her jeans when she was frozen in the foetal position???? why not her waist band???

How many samples did they take from the jeans and where all these samples labelled from the areas that they were taken from?????

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2017, 11:52:55 AM »
OMG... things are bouncing around my head...

How did and who identified Joanna Yeates body?????? The reason I say this is because had all her clothing been removed and he body been covered with a sheet by the time maybe her father identified her???

He wouldn't know what she had been wearing ...no one would have seen the clothes she wore the night she was killed....

Did these clothes come to court as evidence???? Because I will say again... the court drawing has her in different coloured jeans (BLUE) than to the ones she wore to work on Friday 17th December 2010 (BLACK)

And the clothing was never really mentioned until the court trial by which time they have a PLEA and NO-ONE is paying attention to detail!!

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2017, 12:51:27 PM »
www.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-examining-third-car-12799


This one seems to work!

I don't think P.... S....... was ever a suspect.

Not being funny... but why not???? he knew that Greg was away...  he helped start his car..

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2017, 12:56:16 PM »
Who was Eliminated from the DNA on Joanna Yeates body???

(1): CJ

(2): Everyone on the national Data base

(3): One friend of Joanna Yeates don't know whether thats male or female

And who else?????? because we do not know.... they didn't test her work collegues or anyone one of her facebook friends which they were going to do...

I was always under the impression that a lot of Police work was a process of elimination.... so where is the ELIMINATION????

A partial DNA sample that would not fit anyone (IMO) so no need to eliminate people really and waste tax payers money..!!!!!!!!


So why go to Holland??? Thats another thread altogether!!

EDIT....

If they turned this sample around in 48 hours as Lyndsey Lennen brags in the guardian column, surely they should have had all her work collegues lined up for their DNA test first....... as they were aware she was alone at the weekend, unlike Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!

48 hours after they had found her body is 27th December 2010... WHY haven't they gone to her friends and work collegues first?????

Why the Landlord and The Tenant???? There was NOTHING to indicate Dr Vincent Tabak could have had anything to do with this crime, yet they take his DNA in Holland well before they test anyone whom is actually connected to Joanna Yeates..

It's convincing me more that the DNA sample was useless.... it couldn't tell you anything.. so they certainly couldn't connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates body as they have led us to believe (IMO)!!!!

Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2017, 02:18:42 PM »
How are LGC Forensics collecting anything from Joanna Yeates body as it lies in situ???
...
I cannot see why and how they would collect such material before Dr Delaney got to the scene!!!

Isn't it for the pathologist to see the body before ANYONE touches it?
...
Her body is taken from the scene at 4:45pm if I remember correctly and Dr Delaney doesn't get to see her till 6:00pm at the mortuary..

So is that normal for LGC Forensics to start taking samples from a FROZEN body????

Or (IMO) is that why Andrew Mott said that he had to stop a body from thawing, so it was even possible for anyone to take a sample...

I'm sure I remember one of them saying they removed her clothing.. if that was the case, how did they remove clothing from a frozen body that would have been frozen in the foetal position?????
How did they take the DNA sample from the back of her jeans when she was frozen in the foetal position???? why not her waist band???

How many samples did they take from the jeans and where all these samples labelled from the areas that they were taken from?????
Nobody except Andrew Mott and Dr Delaney claimed to have touched the body until long after it was in the mortuary. Dr Delaney testified that he began his post-mortem on Boxing day, which sounds reasonable to me. Presumably it had reached mortuary temperature by then, so it was not frozen. He also told the court that he washed her body in cold water. He said nothing about taking samples of surface fluids for DNA testing, but, if this were done, as is claimed, then there is no reason to believe it wasn't he who did it, even if the actual testing of the samples were done in LGC's laboratory.

It was Joanna's parents who identified her body.

There is nothing inconsistent in Lindsay Lennen's claims in interviews with journalists that a colleague of hers collected Joanna's clothes for analysis on Boxing day. Dr. Delaney would have had to remove these anyway so as to wash the body.

None of the testimony in court shows that Joanna was wearing the same clothes in the pub. On the contrary, there are lot of signs that she wasn't - and IMO this is very significant.

I don't believe anyone's DNA (not even Greg's) was taken until after the body was found, whatever CJ may have suggested in one of his many interviews. After the body was found, anyone known to have been in the flat who was readily available for swab-taking would have had their DNA taken, as matter of routine, without this even being reported.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 02:20:49 PM by Leonora »

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2017, 02:22:40 PM »
Another question I pose... Just looking for video to answer one of mrswah's questions and noticed the buses in and around The Ram Pub....

So what about CCTV that buses have on them.. surely many passed her on her route home!!!

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_mounted_on_exterior_of_buse